So the box office of Man Of Steel according to wikipedia is 668 million dollars and Warner Brothers only got 42.7 million of that?? So Warner incurred 100% of the cost and hard work of producing the film and everybody else gets 500 million?? What do they get in return? Chump change? In what UNIVERSE does this make any sense?? The disparity exists in all the other box office mentioned in the article. Something is very wrong here, I guess this is a business run by imbeciles? If that is the case it would explain the horrific quality of the product.
WB wasn't aiming for $42.7 million profit. They wanted a lot more. Let's not forget that Man of Steel was a rather divisive film. I enjoyed it, but it's just a good movie - not great - and not universally loved.
Also, WB went for an insanely expensive film. Most solo debuts are not $225 million to make (they should be a more modest $150-$180 million), but for some reason, WB decided to make Man of Steel one of the most expensive movies ever, all riding on a dude named Zack Snyder. A lot of this is WB's fault plain and simple. Would Christopher Nolan, 10x the directorial man that Snyder is, need to make a $225 million film, thus cutting into their potential profit?
I also didn't include many of the more successful, profitable films, because most of the examples happened to be Disney, and I didn't want to be accused of "shilling for Disney."
But the reality is, many of Disney's films (Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar/Disney Animation) had profits of $200-$400 million.
THAT'S what you want. So it's not the business that is always being unfair. It's possible to earn $200-$400 million profit. Smart marketing and building of universes, sequels, etc. It CAN be done.
reply
share
LetThemEatCake (2717)
7 years ago
200 million out of 1 billion box office?? LOL, that is a pittance basically, and no one in their right minds would get into such a business without suing galore for their right percentage of profit so again, the fanboy logic just falls flat, like Henry Cavill's dog faced and disproportionately bodied Superman.
reply
share
AtomicReturns (1252)
7 years ago
$200+ million pure profit across multiple sequels and big Avenger-type film adds up to a lot more.
Also, good movies generate interest in merchandise (toys, clothes, games) and theme park attendance (esp. in the case of Disney). Disney makes more money w/ their theme parks, and the movies can be seen as a way to get people more excited about visiting their parks. The success of films like Moana, Zootopia & Frozen sure help sell Disneyland tickets and toys.
And it does make sense that retailers and movie theaters take a share (30%-50% at least). All of it makes sense.
It would not make sense for General Mills to open up their own store just to sell cereal. What a horrible idea for a store. Here's an aerial view of the United States. How many cereal stores do they have to build and employees they have to hire (imagine the cost) just to sell the same amount of cereal they sell now with supermarkets and Costcos?
https://i.imgur.com/kygXVgs.jpg
Same goes for Hanes underwear. Should Hanes open up 900,000 underwear stores across the US, or just sell their product at stores like Target and Walmart, and have those stores hire their own employees?
I could go down the list of famous brands. If they opened up their own stores and tried to cut out the middle-man, most of them would fail. People would not go to a special store dedicated to one brand of bread, one brand of dishwashing soap (Dial Store?), one brand of canned beans (Hormel Store?).
That's why there's supermarkets who help sell products made by other manufacturers. That's why there are movie theaters that show films from all sorts of studios. There is no Paramount Movie Theater that only shows Paramount movies, or a FOX Movie Theater exclusively showing 20th Century Fox films. There aren't enough films made to keep the lights on.
To put it simply: current retailers & movie theater chains actually amplify sales far better than if the manufacturers/studios created their own specialty stores or movie theaters.
reply
share
LetThemEatCake (2717)
7 years ago
Studios used to have their own theater chains, they were stripped of them because it was deemed unconstitutional. A theater is a retailer, nothing more. There isn't a company in the entire WORLD that would allow a retailer to retain 50% of the profit of a product. NO ONE IN THE WORLD.
reply
share
TwistedAcrobat (1725)
7 years ago
you are right. Retailers get WAY MORE than the makers of the product.
If you don't understand it, back off and let the men talk. Little boys sit down and keep quite for the lesson. K?
reply
share
HAL 9010 (904)
7 years ago
Depends on the retailer. Supermarkets take very low margins generally, indeed. Clothes shops though is the opposite. And furniture shops too. Retaining around 60% or even higher is normal in those industries... it all depends on the retailer. That cinemas take 50% sounds like a lot, but not unlikely and not uncommon.
reply
share
LetThemEatCake (2717)
7 years ago
Bullshit. You can only do that if you buy product from sweatshops in bangladesh. No reputable manufacturer, like Chanel for instance, would ever allow a retailer to make 50% profit or 200% or 300% profit over their product. As a matter of fact, all reputable products have a suggested retail price and no retailer is allowed to go a few cents over suggested retail price. Films are a reputable product so they would never allow a retailer to take 50% of the profit or jack up the price to the point were they get 200% or 300% profit. Come down to the real world.
reply
share
HAL 9010 (904)
7 years ago
Why so hostile?
Chanel though is an interesting example. Their production cost is not that much different from sweatshop levels, however their brand allows them to overprice insanely. So own retail stores surely overprice when compared to their own actual production costs. Though yes, strong brands as those often dictate the end price.
reply
share
LetThemEatCake (2717)
7 years ago
allows who to overprice? If you see the price of their perfumes on their official website it is the same retail price for any department store, even in latin america so it is Chanel who dictates the profit margin of their product and I'm sure they are never going to allow a retailer to take half of their profit, the retailer can take it or live it, so I still can't understand how or why theater chains will take 50% of the profit of a movie when they literally invested zero money in its production. If that is actually the case then studio people are imbeciles. Either way the game is about to change because studios are coming out with their own streaming services, so theaters can go fuck themselves.
reply
share
HAL 9010 (904)
7 years ago
I understand your "frustration" and I do not know if Cinemas actually pocket 50% of the admission price... but I do know the retail business. And as I previously mentioned, some general clothes shops pocket around 60% or in some cases even higher... it all depends. But this is how it works. Many of them buy in bulk and at very cheap prices and then repackage and sell in their stores price adjusted to schmucks like us. Even in January sale of sometimes 75% off, it is not only to cut loses. In fact, even with these humongous discounts they do marginally profit. It is ridicules but also a matter of fact.
Of course, I am not saying it is the same in the Cinema business. I do not know. My initial reply was to your post that categorically denied such markups exist in ANY retail. They do (much have been published in articles on this topic). If in cinema? Who knows, but the majority or articles seem to support this. I suspect the reality is not that simple. Likely it is connected with number of sold tickets, popularity of the movie or franchise etc etc… they all keep at it, and this tells me that the business is not too bad for either party.
And as the MOS example shows. Even if more than 50% of the revenue is lost to others. The ROI was still quite nice for WB.
reply
share
LetThemEatCake (2717)
7 years ago
No return on investment is worth it if 50% of revenue will go to others, that is just INSANE. And I'm not frustrated at all and I am not a schmuck. Like I said earlier, what you mention as an example happens in non reputable stores with questionable business practices that buy from people with slaves abroad making their 1 cent shirts and clothes so that they can sell at 10 dollars or more. It does not happen with reputable brands or businesses, and not even high end, just reputable. I used Chanel as an example because I like their perfumes and have compared the prices on their websites and on department stores and it is the same, so it is the brand that decides the price and they are not going to allow a 50% profit on THEIR product by the retailer. The same should be of movie studios and if it isn't then they are imbeciles, and given the quality of the movies they put out, well...
reply
share